Currículo

Atitudes e Comportamentos Políticos 00528

Contextos

ECTS

6.0 (para cálculo da média)

Objectivos

No final da UC, cada estudante deverá ser capaz de: OA1. Definir e analisar criticamente os principais conceitos relacionados com atitudes e comportamentos políticos; OA2. Identificar e analisar criticamente os factores explicativos mais relevantes das atitudes e comportamentos políticos; OA3. Conhecer os desenvolvimentos clássicos e mais recentes na produção científica relativa às atitudes e comportamentos políticos; OA4. Compreender e analisar criticamente investigações empíricas muito actuais relacionadas com atitudes e comportamentos políticos; OA5. Comunicar de forma clara e apelativa artigos científicos complexos e analisá-los criticamente, tanto oralmente como por escrito.

Programa

Parte 1: Comportamentos Políticos CP1. Participação eleitoral vs abstenção CP2. Comportamento eleitoral CP3. Diferentes formas de participação política Parte 2: Atitudes Políticas CP4. Preferências políticas CP5. Sofisticação política e interesse CP6. Confiança política e satisfação

Método de Avaliação

Os/as estudantes podem optar por realizar a UC por avaliação ao longo do semestre ou por exame. A avaliação ao longo do semestre tem as seguintes componentes: a) Participação e exercícios práticos em aula (25%) — valorizam-se intervenções relevantes que revelam que se está a seguir a matéria, ter uma postura que demonstra estar a seguir as aulas com atenção, participar nos debates e o resultado de exercícios realizados em contexto de aula. b) Projeto de ensaio (25%) — plano preliminar do ensaio individual (ponto c), com a pergunta de investigação e breve revisão da literatura (máx. 300 palavras), bem como uma bibliografia preliminar (máx. 20 referências), submetido por escrito e ao qual o docente dará comentários para orientar a elaboração do ponto c). c) Ensaio escrito individual (50%) — uma revisão da literatura sobre um tema relacionado com a UC (de forma articulada e crítica), que deve orientado por uma pergunta de partida e pode, facultativamente, ser complementada pela apresentação e discussão de dados empíricos (máx. 5000 palavras, excluindo referências bibliográficas, figuras e tabelas). Todos os momentos de avaliação são obrigatórios.

Carga Horária

Bibliografia

Principal

• Berinsky, Adam (ed, 2020), New Directions in Public Opinion. Londres: Routledge. Dalton, Russell (2019), Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies (7.ª ed.). Londres: Sage. Dalton, Russell e Hans-Dieter Klingemann (eds, 2007), The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Freire, André (2022), Left and Right: meaning and correlates in new and long consolidated democracies, Moldova: Eliva Press. Fisher, Justin, et al (eds, 2018), The Routledge Handbook of Elections, Voting Behavior and Public Opinion, Londres: Routledge. Lobo, Marina Costa e Ana Espírito-Santo (2023), O Eleitorado Português no Século XXI. Lisboa: Tinta da china. van Deth, Jan, José Ramón Montero e Anders Westholm (eds, 2007), Citizenship and involvement in European democracies: a comparative analysis. Londres: Routledge.:

Secundária

• Albertson, B., & Gadarian, S. K. (2015). Anxious politics: Democratic citizenship in a threatening world. Cambridge University Press. Bartolini, S., & Mair, P. (1990). Identity, competition, and electoral availability: The stabilisation of European electorates, 1885–1985. Cambridge University Press. Benedetto, G., Hix, S., & Mastrorocco, N. (2020). The rise and fall of social democracy, 1918–2017. American Political Science Review, 114(3), 928–939. Bischof, D., & Wagner, M. (2019). Do voters polarize when radical parties enter parliament? American Journal of Political Science, 63(4), 888–904. Brader, T. (2005). Striking a responsive chord: How political ads motivate and persuade voters by appealing to emotions. American Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 388–405. Brady, H. E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 271–294. Chandra, K. (2006). What is ethnic identity and does it matter? Annual Review of Political Science, 9(1), 397–424. Choi, D. D., Poertner, M., & Sambanis, N. (2019). Parochialism, social norms, and discrimination against immigrants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(33), 16274–16279. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). Free Press. Costa, E., Silva, P., & Espírito-Santo, A. (2024). Género e voto em Portugal: onde está o gender gap? In M. C. Lobo & A. Espírito-Santo (Eds.), O Eleitorado Português no Século XXI. Tinta da China. Dalton, R. J. (2021). The representation gap and political sophistication: A contrarian perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 54(5), 889–917. Dalton, R., van Sickle, A., & Weldon, S. (2010). The Individual-Institutional Nexus of Protest Behaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 51-73. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press. Dinas, E., & Northmore-Ball, K. (2020). The ideological shadow of authoritarianism. Comparative Political Studies, 53(12), 1957–1991. Duch, R. M., & Stevenson, R. T. (2008). The economic vote: How political and economic institutions condition election results. Cambridge University Press. Easton, D. (1965). A Systems Analysis of Political Life. Wiley. Easton, D. (1975). A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science, 5(4), 435–457. Fernandes, J. M., & Won, M. (2023). The unintended consequences of amplifying the radical right on Twitter. Political Communication, 40(6), 742–767. Fernandes, J. M., Lopes da Fonseca, M., & Won, M. (2024). Political competition and the effectiveness of gender quotas: Evidence from Portugal. The Journal of Politics, 86(1), 183-198. Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. (2008). Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 563–588. Flanagan, S. C., & Lee, A. R. (2003). The new politics, culture wars, and the authoritarian-libertarian value change in advanced industrial democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 36(3), 235–270. Freire, A. (2001). Modelos do Comportamento Eleitoral: Uma breve introdução crítica. Celta Editora. Freire, A. (2022). Left and Right: Meaning and correlates in new and long consolidated democracies. Eliva Press. Freire, A., Carvalho, H., & Queiroga, V. (2024). Polarização partidária e voto ideológico em Portugal. In M. C. Lobo & A. Espírito-Santo (Eds.), O Eleitorado Português no Século XXI. Tinta da China. Garzia, D., Reiljan, A., Ferreira da Silva, F., & Trechsel, A. (2025). Affective Polarization. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1981 Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Larimer, C. W. (2008). Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 33–48. Hainmueller, J., & Hopkins, D. J. (2014). Public attitudes toward immigration. Annual Review of Political Science, 17(1), 225–249. Hainmueller, J., & Hopkins, D. J. (2015). The hidden American immigration consensus: A conjoint analysis of attitudes toward immigrants. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 529–548. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2018). Cleavage theory meets Europe’s crises. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(1), 109–135. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2025). How does the education cleavage stack up against the classic cleavages of the past? West European Politics (Online First). Hooghe, L., Marks, G., & Kamphorst, J. (2025). Field of education and political behavior: Predicting GAL/TAN voting. American Political Science Review, 119(2), 794–811. Hopkins, D. J., Sides, J., & Citrin, J. (2019). The muted consequences of correct information about immigration. The Journal of Politics, 81(1), 315–320. Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127–156. Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707. Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. Krause, W., Cohen, D., & Abou-Chadi, T. (2023). Does accommodation work? Mainstream party strategies and the success of radical right parties. Political Science Research and Methods, 11(1), 172–179. Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S., & Frey, T. (2006). Globalization and the transformation of the national political space: Six European countries compared. European Journal of Political Research, 45(6), 921–956. Lawless, J. L., & Fox, R. L. (2010). It still takes a candidate: Why women don't run for office. Cambridge University Press. Levi, M., & Stoker, L. (2000). Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 475–507. Lipset, S. M., & Rokkan, S. (1967). Cleavage structures, party systems, and voter alignments: An introduction. In S. M. Lipset & S. Rokkan (Eds.), Party systems and voter alignments: Cross-national perspectives (pp. 1–64). Free Press. Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The Democratic Dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know? Cambridge University Press. Luskin, R. C. (1987). Measuring political sophistication. American Journal of Political Science, 31(4), 856–899. Magalhães, P. C. (2017). Regime support. In J. Fisher et al. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Elections, Voting Behavior and Public Opinion (pp. 416–428). Routledge. Marcus, G. E., & MacKuen, M. (1993). Anxiety, enthusiasm, and the vote: The emotional underpinnings of learning and involvement during presidential campaigns. American Political Science Review, 87(3), 672–685. Posner, D. N. (2004). The political salience of cultural difference: Why Chewas and Tumbukas are allies in Zambia and adversaries in Malawi. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 529–545. Reiljan, A., Garzia, D., Ferreira da Silva, F., & Trechsel, A. H. (2024). Patterns of affective polarization toward parties and leaders across the democratic world. American Political Science Review, 118(2), 654–670. Riker, W. H., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1968). A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review, 62(1), 25–42. Santana-Pereira, J., & Cancela, J. (2020). Demand without supply? Populist attitudes and voting behaviour in post-bailout Portugal. South European Society and Politics, 25(2), 205–228. Stockemer, D. (2017). What affects voter turnout? A review article/meta-analysis of aggregate research. Government and Opposition, 52(4), 698–722. Teperoglou, E., & Tsatsanis, E. (2011). A new divide? The impact of globalisation on national party systems. West European Politics, 34(6), 1207–1228. Theocharis, Y., & van Deth, J. W. (2018). The continuous expansion of citizen participation: A new taxonomy. European Political Science Review, 10(1), 139–163. Valentim, V. (2021). Parliamentary representation and the normalization of radical right support. Comparative Political Studies, 54(14), 2475–2511. van Deth, J., Montero, J. R., & Westholm, A. (Eds.). (2007). Citizenship and Involvement in European Democracies: A Comparative Analysis. Routledge. Vries, C. E., & Hobolt, S. B. (2020). Political entrepreneurs: The rise of challenger parties in Europe. Princeton University Press. Weiss, C. M. (2021). Diversity in health care institutions reduces Israeli patients’ prejudice toward Arabs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(14), e2022634118. Zaller, J., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 579–616.:

Disciplinas de Execução